Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Christianity as a culture is not primarily a belief but a belief's generator

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 11:41pm

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Christianity as a culture is not primarily a belief but a belief's generator

Below is a posting from my Facebook. The last few responses show the nature of Christianity. It is not something that can necessarily be reasoned or confronted rationally. It appears to be a true enculturalization of the individual in which culture is not the glasses whereby to understand the world and can be easily replaced. Culture appears to be the eyes themselves which can not be removed. To get a theist to a point of rational and critical thinking about his/her belief system requires a process of slowly creating doubt as to the world view as a whole, showing skepticism to be a more useful tool than belief and demonstrating group acceptance in a secular system. There is an excellent article by David Eller in Loftus's the Christian Delusion. The article, the Cultures of Christianities, points out that there are multiple types of Christianities all functioning as particular cultures. He shows how missionaries that are successful enter a culture and slowly erode its meaning as they replace it with a Christian Culture. The book, the Christian Delusion has many good articles worth reading if you can find it. The editor, John W. Loftus, is a friend of a friend and was a part of my denomination before we became atheists. How do we really respond to something like below? Tommy BakerIf Einstein were alive today he would probably use the Force from Star Wars as his metaphorical language rather than god.

Tommy BakerIn the beginning was Einstein and the Einstein was toward god and the Einstein was god.? RichardYesterday at 8:01pm ·

David B KingHe already came back as Dumbledore reincarnated!16 hours ago ·

Tricia Battles OrrSilly Tommy. Of course there is a God. You just have to BELIEVE!!4 hours ago ·

Tommy BakerThe question is what Einstein would point to I think Force is what he was looking at when he said god rather than a person. I'd rather have facts.4 hours ago ·

Tricia Battles OrrYou know I can't understand all of that smart talk. How long have you known me? I know you need facts. We have discussed this subject many times. All I know to say is the Bible is fact enough for me. And you know I can't debate you cause I don't understand half the stuff you are saying. ha. I just hope you get better soon.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Faith is like a counter to skepticism. Faith does not allow room for skeptical thought. Throw want and desire in the mix and you have a solid brick wall. A brick wall that can construct it's self and divide a friendship even.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

That girl Tricia Battles Orr sounds like a real airhead. She admits to being short on brains, lacks evidence and has no interest in seeking any. I'll even bet she's never read the bible beyond a few passages in the NT.

In Guyana they have a unique slang term for females like TBOrr, it is said that silly girls [of any age] who can't cope with reality or the realitys of life "hide in church" it is a highly derogatory term for silly old fools with no copeing skills. TBOrr hides in church.

I've had Christians say even if you show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already believe in God and will choose to do so no matter what. This is enculturation and brainwashing. it actually rises to the level of delusion. Apart from religion being an accepted part of society it would be classified by the Psychological diagnosis book DSM IV as a mental disorder. We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

So Christians are not typically responding on a rational basis. They are responding from this whole world view that gives them language, activities, regulations and meaning. They are maintaining a culture rather than just a religion when they hold to their unwarranted views. This is evidence that the New Atheism which is actively responsive to this antiquated world view is necessary for any hope of a rational future. Otherwise we will continue to have wars based upon 2000 year old religious turf battles, other cultures being tagged as Satan and subject to prejudice and biases that can and will lead to violent conflict and a world view that delays progress in science and ethics.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I've had Christians say even if you show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already believe in God and will choose to do so no matter what. This is enculturation and brainwashing. it actually rises to the level of delusion.

Desire and faith as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Apart from religion being an accepted part of society it would be classified by the Psychological diagnosis book DSM IV as a mental disorder. We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

So Christians are not typically responding on a rational basis. They are responding from this whole world view that gives them language, activities, regulations and meaning. They are maintaining a culture rather than just a religion when they hold to their unwarranted views. This is evidence that the New Atheism which is actively responsive to this antiquated world view is necessary for any hope of a rational future. Otherwise we will continue to have wars based upon 2000 year old religious turf battles, other cultures being tagged as Satan and subject to prejudice and biases that can and will lead to violent conflict and a world view that delays progress in science and ethics.

I agree.

Have I overused the term detachment lately? Outspoken atheism is not just an anti to religion and gods.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I do agree with the main points in the post, the only thing that I would add-or deleat would be the phrase Cultures of Christianities. What is said fits such a vast group that the phrase Cultures of (place any groups name here)still fits.

If Einstein were alive today he would probably use the Force from Star Wars as his metaphorical language rather than god. My responce is ----

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I do agree with the main points in the post, the only thing that I would add-or deleat would be the phrase Cultures of Christianities. What is said fits such a vast group that the phrase Cultures of (place any groups name here)still fits.

If Einstein were alive today he would probably use the Force from Star Wars as his metaphorical language rather than god. My responce is ----

May the Force be with you.

it has nothing to do with us disproving god. it has everything to do with theists proving god by the same standards with which we as humans prove everything else, e.g., scientific laws and theories (theories, mind you, not hypotheses), historical facts, medicinal cures, etc. no theist has ever done this. until this happens, we choose to remain a-theistic, i.e., not positive believers in god. we don't say there is no possibility of a god. we only say a god has never been demonstrated the same way, say, gravity has been demonstrated.

this is all atheism is. period.

anything else anyone chooses to add to it is their own baggage.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I do agree with the main points in the post, the only thing that I would add-or deleat would be the phrase Cultures of Christianities. What is said fits such a vast group that the phrase Cultures of (place any groups name here)still fits.

If Einstein were alive today he would probably use the Force from Star Wars as his metaphorical language rather than god. My responce is ----

May the Force be with you.

it has nothing to do with us disproving god. it has everything to do with theists proving god by the same standards with which we as humans prove everything else, e.g., scientific laws and theories (theories, mind you, not hypotheses), historical facts, medicinal cures, etc. no theist has ever done this. until this happens, we choose to remain a-theistic, i.e., not positive believers in god. we don't say there is no possibility of a god. we only say a god has never been demonstrated the same way, say, gravity has been demonstrated.

this is all atheism is. period.

anything else anyone chooses to add to it is their own baggage.

I'll add baggage. The bible and koran are obviously man made so that imo negates those two "gods" or "god" if you consider them to be the same as many do. We simply don't believe in a god because there is no evidence for one other than that manufactured by other men.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

Proof for my way of thinking is easy - Man does not need religion we need a God. Biologically we are desighned for it. Evolution proves it and social struture needs it. Most imprtant women find us more atrative.While others say that religion causes wars and conflicts. It has regulated our conduct and behavior in society and provides a set of morals and value-system for human existence. Scientists have established that some circuits in the temporal lobe are involved in religious experience. This doesnt prove God only that our physial brain is desighned for it. Some Biologist believe that much if not all religious behavior could have risen from evolution by natural selection. I do not argue against evolution or natural selection so for us to evolve the need we must have a need. Sine the evolutionary need has been found everywhere… who am I to argue against sciene Natural seletion = Women find us more atrative.

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I do agree with the main points in the post, the only thing that I would add-or deleat would be the phrase Cultures of Christianities. What is said fits such a vast group that the phrase Cultures of (place any groups name here)still fits.

If Einstein were alive today he would probably use the Force from Star Wars as his metaphorical language rather than god. My responce is ----

May the Force be with you.

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

Wow, I actually understood that. I like it.

Quote:

The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

Yes, and according to them all, they are each created in the image of said go - identities that go waaay beyond the Trinity.

hey, tg, can you do a formula like that proving that humans are not created in the image of the christian god?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

Proof for my way of thinking is easy - Man does not need religion we need a God. Biologically we are desighned for it. Evolution proves it and social struture needs it. Most imprtant women find us more atrative.While others say that religion causes wars and conflicts. It has regulated our conduct and behavior in society and provides a set of morals and value-system for human existence. Scientists have established that some circuits in the temporal lobe are involved in religious experience. This doesnt prove God only that our physial brain is desighned for it. Some Biologist believe that much if not all religious behavior could have risen from evolution by natural selection. I do not argue against evolution or natural selection so for us to evolve the need we must have a need. Sine the evolutionary need has been found everywhere… who am I to argue against sciene Natural seletion = Women find us more atrative.

Your theory has a flaw: atheists not only exist but, are increasing in numbers... suggesting that the direction of human evolution is moving away from a need for god. Humans used to drag their knuckles on the ground too but, most have evolved out of that habit.

Please explain: 'Women find us more attractive' Women find who more attractive?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

Wow, I actually understood that. I like it.

Quote:

The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

Yes, and according to them all, they are each created in the image of said go - identities that go waaay beyond the Trinity.

hey, tg, can you do a formula like that proving that humans are not created in the image of the christian god?

Ain't that easier to understand than Mr. Metaphysics Ontological Argument??? Thanks Ockham's Razor ya know. By the way I got 4 perfect matches for bone marrow transplants. I gotta figure out 24 hour care and transportation for the next 4 months. 28 days of IV's at the Dr's office after the transplant. Sounds like a good formula... I think on that one. perhaps just evolution itself shows our morphology simply changes and reflects no one image or blueprint much less mental ability.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Ain't that easier to understand than Mr. Metaphysics Ontological Argument??? Thanks Ockham's Razor ya know. By the way I got 4 perfect matches for bone marrow transplants. I gotta figure out 24 hour care and transportation for the next 4 months. 28 days of IV's at the Dr's office after the transplant. Sounds like a good formula... I think on that one. perhaps just evolution itself shows our morphology simply changes and reflects no one image or blueprint much less mental ability.

Sheesh, tg, I hate to say it but, you make my recent TMJ flare up seem more like a hiccup.

4% matches... is that good?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Ain't that easier to understand than Mr. Metaphysics Ontological Argument??? Thanks Ockham's Razor ya know. By the way I got 4 perfect matches for bone marrow transplants. I gotta figure out 24 hour care and transportation for the next 4 months. 28 days of IV's at the Dr's office after the transplant. Sounds like a good formula... I think on that one. perhaps just evolution itself shows our morphology simply changes and reflects no one image or blueprint much less mental ability.

Sheesh, tg, I hate to say it but, you make my recent TMJ flare up seem more like a hiccup.

4% matches... is that good?

Read again four perfect matches each a 10 out of 10!!!! Sorry bought the TMJ. I will atheistically pray for you. I thought I had fbro myalgia but it wasn't.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

So becoming a theist will get you laid more? Perhaps the best reason to become a theist I have ever heard. Maybe I will have to try that as a pickup line "Hey baby, want to come back to my place and pray?" Bet that will get her hot and bothered...

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

Proof for my way of thinking is easy - Man does not need religion we need a God. Biologically we are desighned for it. Evolution proves it and social struture needs it. Most imprtant women find us more atrative.While others say that religion causes wars and conflicts. It has regulated our conduct and behavior in society and provides a set of morals and value-system for human existence. Scientists have established that some circuits in the temporal lobe are involved in religious experience. This doesnt prove God only that our physial brain is desighned for it. Some Biologist believe that much if not all religious behavior could have risen from evolution by natural selection. I do not argue against evolution or natural selection so for us to evolve the need we must have a need. Sine the evolutionary need has been found everywhere… who am I to argue against sciene Natural seletion = Women find us more atrative.

Natural selection states that there is no need. it is simply DNA that survives the harshness of its environment reproduces. Sexual reproduction merges two DNA paths and genetic drift moves away from the original DNA sequences. Mutations like my Lukemia are flaws or disruptions in the chromosones and DNA. Most are weaker and cannot survive the environment or context. But some are hardier and get added to the genetic pool. No need no purpose just natural selection.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I've had Christians say even if you show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already believe in God and will choose to do so no matter what. This is enculturation and brainwashing. it actually rises to the level of delusion.

Desire and faith as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Apart from religion being an accepted part of society it would be classified by the Psychological diagnosis book DSM IV as a mental disorder. We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

So Christians are not typically responding on a rational basis. They are responding from this whole world view that gives them language, activities, regulations and meaning. They are maintaining a culture rather than just a religion when they hold to their unwarranted views. This is evidence that the New Atheism which is actively responsive to this antiquated world view is necessary for any hope of a rational future. Otherwise we will continue to have wars based upon 2000 year old religious turf battles, other cultures being tagged as Satan and subject to prejudice and biases that can and will lead to violent conflict and a world view that delays progress in science and ethics.

I agree.

Have I overused the term detachment lately? Outspoken atheism is not just an anti to religion and gods.

I followed through with some of your threads on detachment. I never thought of it that way before be the delusion of belief detaches from the reality of your life loved one and responsibilities by attaching you to a delusional life, view of loved ones through a religious moral expectation and your responsibility to God above all others. It is almost like ADHD where you must filter out tjhe obvious to conform to your system of belief. Thanks for that incite. Develop it by posting it more!!!!

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

At least you ain't bald. It took me a year to grow my hair out then it fell out gee.

But you look good bald.

I caused the flare up by doing one of the few things I'm good at and actually enjoy - crocheting this

it took me about 24 hours, over two weeks.

The last flare up, last year, was caused by a pair of crocheted peacocks.

Sheesh, WTF?

... and the really sad part is, the lady I made this for wants two more!!!

Do you know what causes your TMJ. Does something like ativan or ultram work? Ultram has helped me with a lot of joint pains etc.; Ativan just knocks me out. Do you clinch your teeth crocheting. Great finished product by the way craftmanship is craftmanship. I find I quite breathing when I type so I have to consciously be aware. If you clinch then it is a meditation practice ?????? Be Aware.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I've had Christians say even if you show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already believe in God and will choose to do so no matter what. This is enculturation and brainwashing. it actually rises to the level of delusion.

Desire and faith as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Apart from religion being an accepted part of society it would be classified by the Psychological diagnosis book DSM IV as a mental disorder. We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

So Christians are not typically responding on a rational basis. They are responding from this whole world view that gives them language, activities, regulations and meaning. They are maintaining a culture rather than just a religion when they hold to their unwarranted views. This is evidence that the New Atheism which is actively responsive to this antiquated world view is necessary for any hope of a rational future. Otherwise we will continue to have wars based upon 2000 year old religious turf battles, other cultures being tagged as Satan and subject to prejudice and biases that can and will lead to violent conflict and a world view that delays progress in science and ethics.

I agree.

Have I overused the term detachment lately? Outspoken atheism is not just an anti to religion and gods.

I followed through with some of your threads on detachment. I never thought of it that way before be the delusion of belief detaches from the reality of your life loved one and responsibilities by attaching you to a delusional life, view of loved ones through a religious moral expectation and your responsibility to God above all others. It is almost like ADHD where you must filter out tjhe obvious to conform to your system of belief. Thanks for that incite. Develop it by posting it more!!!!

I'm certain some folks here are aware and could look into it deeper than I, my philosophy skill stinks, I mostly work with common sense kind of stuff.

I like the adhd reference, that just about fits.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

lately - the idea that beliefs, all beliefs, including beliefs in evidence uncovered empirically, are not real, can not be proven, are perceptions. It's just bizarre. In response I link this illustration of my point:

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

lately - the idea that beliefs, all beliefs, including beliefs in evidence uncovered empirically, are not real, can not be proven, are perceptions. It's just bizarre. In response I link this illustration of my point:

When a physicist looks at an object we can say that he is analysing his perception of the object. We have an aspect of faith in the scientific method that sees those perceptions as corresponding to the external world. When we deal with consciousness we are dealing with a report of someone's perception and therefore typically trust self-reports ( I have a headache etc.). We assume that others beside ourselves have minds. That data is not accessible but by report. We can take a trusting stance that the reports are of perceptions that correspond to consciousness. If we can not trust that the physicist's perceptions have some correlate to the external world we have no means of objectifying data as presenting a guide to the real world and can only speak of mental perceptions and not reality. We have evidence that when we see a tree in the real world there is a tree. Our perception is really our data but it points to and signifies what it represents in the real world.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

When a physicist looks at an object we can say that he is analysing his perception of the object. We have an aspect of faith in the scientific method that sees those perceptions as corresponding to the external world. When we deal with consciousness we are dealing with a report of someone's perception and therefore typically trust self-reports ( I have a headache etc.). We assume that others beside ourselves have minds. That data is not accessible but by report. We can take a trusting stance that the reports are of perceptions that correspond to consciousness. If we can not trust that the physicist's perceptions have some correlate to the external world we have no means of objectifying data as presenting a guide to the real world and can only speak of mental perceptions and not reality. We have evidence that when we see a tree in the real world there is a tree. Our perception is really our data but it points to and signifies what it represents in the real world.

Now, that one zoomed right over my head.

About the TMJ, yeah I have a good idea what causes it to flare up - the muscles in the right side of my neck get stiff and pull on the weaker muscles of my jaw which then pulls the jaw out of socket. Chewing on one side only, carrying a heavy shoulder purse and keeping my arm in an awkward position for an extended period of time - all of which I do - aggravates it.

On a 'normal' day, I wake up with my jaw locked shut because of it relaxing backwards in my sleep but, it usually goes back in place within an hour. It's never been like this for a week before. I've tried muscle relaxers and they help some but, massage and 'working' it has always fixed it before. The last time this happened, I had excruciating pain. This time, it's mostly just annoying. The best 'medicine' I found was a Physical Therapy/Therapist manual for $60 on Amazon last year. Great book with massage techniques and exercises.

'This too, shall pass'. Right?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

Is this response your way of saying - show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already don’t believe in God and will choose not to do so no matter what?I gave you proofs as to why we need a god. I do not have a degree in theology but, I do in chemistry, business and art. I like to draw. The problem with using discipline of Science is that there are multiple factions of variant theories within any scientific field. Their differences of views form different cultures that use the same empirical data who believe differently and against one another. To compound the issue, the scientific community doesn’t accept all sub-cultures. So when an unaccepted culture is found to be right does that mean everything else within the self proclaimed scientific community is wrong?

Yes I am using your words, they fit. I am not sure of what real world you live in but I have been a part of International science groups who have shown an unbelieveable inability to represent the real world or even real perceptions of truths. Bullshit runs deep through all aspects of human culture.

Your theory has a flaw: atheists not only exist but, are increasing in numbers... suggesting that the direction of human evolution is moving away from a need for god. Humans used to drag their knuckles on the ground too but, most have evolved out of that habit.

Please explain: 'Women find us more attractive' Women find who more attractive?

Atheists are increasing in numbers. Hmmm, deductive reasoning would tell me that the decline in economic and social order, failure of the school systems to teach students, a crumbling infrastructure, overpsending… All this time I was blaming politicians when it was really the rise of atheists.This falls under the same comment as the 'Women find us more attractive' – Not serious , just havin fun. Life is too serious to take serious.

It is not my theory; it is documented studies based on scientific truths. The oddity is that atheist and theists have been tested and show the same result. Maybe you are the odd one out or just denying you true self? As far as the next step of evolution, some scientific cultures believe that the chimpanzee evolved from humans and not the other way around. We may all end up back in the trees.

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

Is this response your way of saying - show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already don’t believe in God and will choose not to do so no matter what?I gave you proofs as to why we need a god. I do not have a degree in theology but, I do in chemistry, business and art. I like to draw. The problem with using discipline of Science is that there are multiple factions of variant theories within any scientific field. Their differences of views form different cultures that use the same empirical data who believe differently and against one another. To compound the issue, the scientific community doesn’t accept all sub-cultures. So when an unaccepted culture is found to be right does that mean everything else within the self proclaimed scientific community is wrong?

Yes I am using your words, they fit. I am not sure of what real world you live in but I have been a part of International science groups who have shown an unbelieveable inability to represent the real world or even real perceptions of truths. Bullshit runs deep through all aspects of human culture.

NO it is a logical presentation of the classical theodicy issue. It basically says that the state of the world as we experience it does not fit the classical theism of a god who is all-knowing, omnipotent and all loving. The real world I'm living in has babies starving to death at the dried up breasts of her mother. Children are molested, people get sick and die, women are raped. There is a world in which there is suffering. And my argument was so presented to leave open discussion of alternative definitions of god that do not fit the traditional Christian, Muslim and Jewish view. Secondly the evidence I believe in the Bible points to fabrication of the Christian belief and a long development of OT traditions that are more legend than factual. Within science you have differences of hypotheses about a theory rather than competing theories. We lack in science for example a theory of consciousness. There are many hypotheses but they did not rise to the scientific meaning of theory. To call evolution a theory does not mean it lacks facticity. It is a fact.

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.n scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. (WIKI)

What sub-cultures does the scientific community not accept? Parapsychology? I can understand because it does not function or produce results so far as a science. SCience has been the most successful behavior beside sexual reproduction that homo sapiens has manifested.

But know personally to answer your question show me sufficient evidence and I will believe. I will certainly believe ina god if there is evidence and reason. Why would you judge me as closed to such a thing. Responding to the logical argument about a god above would be evidence that it is not a problem to your premise there is a god.It seems that you are closed to the possibility that your god is as ficticious as the Muslims, Mormons, Hindnus, Native American Indians, Zeus, Mars, Jupiter, Athena, Mythras etc.; What has the scientific community failed to present truthfully. You certainly can make claims as Thomas Kuhn in The Structures of Scientific Revolutions that science progresses not by an accumulation of knowledge but the shifting of paradigms that interpret the accumulated knowledge.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

When a physicist looks at an object we can say that he is analysing his perception of the object. We have an aspect of faith in the scientific method that sees those perceptions as corresponding to the external world. When we deal with consciousness we are dealing with a report of someone's perception and therefore typically trust self-reports ( I have a headache etc.). We assume that others beside ourselves have minds. That data is not accessible but by report. We can take a trusting stance that the reports are of perceptions that correspond to consciousness. If we can not trust that the physicist's perceptions have some correlate to the external world we have no means of objectifying data as presenting a guide to the real world and can only speak of mental perceptions and not reality. We have evidence that when we see a tree in the real world there is a tree. Our perception is really our data but it points to and signifies what it represents in the real world.

Now, that one zoomed right over my head.

About the TMJ, yeah I have a good idea what causes it to flare up - the muscles in the right side of my neck get stiff and pull on the weaker muscles of my jaw which then pulls the jaw out of socket. Chewing on one side only, carrying a heavy shoulder purse and keeping my arm in an awkward position for an extended period of time - all of which I do - aggravates it.

On a 'normal' day, I wake up with my jaw locked shut because of it relaxing backwards in my sleep but, it usually goes back in place within an hour. It's never been like this for a week before. I've tried muscle relaxers and they help some but, massage and 'working' it has always fixed it before. The last time this happened, I had excruciating pain. This time, it's mostly just annoying. The best 'medicine' I found was a Physical Therapy/Therapist manual for $60 on Amazon last year. Great book with massage techniques and exercises.

Atheists are increasing in numbers. Hmmm, deductive reasoning would tell me that the decline in economic and social order, failure of the school systems to teach students, a crumbling infrastructure, overpsending… All this time I was blaming politicians when it was really the rise of atheists.This falls under the same comment as the 'Women find us more attractive' – Not serious , just havin fun. Life is too serious to take serious.

It is not my theory; it is documented studies based on scientific truths. The oddity is that atheist and theists have been tested and show the same result. Maybe you are the odd one out or just denying you true self? As far as the next step of evolution, some scientific cultures believe that the chimpanzee evolved from humans and not the other way around. We may all end up back in the trees.

You obviously don't understand how 'scientific truths' work. There are no absolutes in science, only leading theories on a particular subject. Certain theories are so well supported by empirical data and peer reviewed duplicate experiments, that everyone assumes them to be correct. The studies that you are alluding to are at the cutting edge of neuroscience, and one of the better known ones such as The God Helmet has not been successfully replicated. In other words, they are just theories, they have yet to become scientific theories. Once the results are independently duplicated and the findings are consistent it will become a scientific theory.

Even if the studies turned out to be correct, and we were hardwired to believe in god, how does that support your god? If anything it just shows that the need to believe is driven by a biological function. So is the need to bash a woman in the head with a bat in order to drag back to the cave, but most of us overcome that need... how do you get god out of that?

As for the last thing you said, about some scientific cultures? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Anyone that believes that chimpanzees evolved from humans is an idiot, anyone that believes that humans evolved from today's chimpanzees has no clear understanding of how evolution works. Both humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor... I'm hoping that you were jesting because otherwise that was pretty stupid.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Maybe this is changing the subject unnecessarily, or needs a new thread, but I'm curious.

TGBaker wrote:

We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

If the USA were an atheistic nation instead of a very confused theistic nation, in what ways would our views on good and evil change? Obviously, gay lifestyles would no longer be debated and abortions would be considerably more acceptable, but aside from these morals that are rooted in religion, what would change? Would holidays such as Christmas and Easter go out the door? There hasn't been a truly atheist country yet so it's hard to say, but I'd like to hear what you think the major changes would be. Your comment about our laws being based on Judeo-Christian standards jumped out at me.

Maybe this is changing the subject unnecessarily, or needs a new thread, but I'm curious.

TGBaker wrote:

We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA. Our money says in God we Trust. We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine. Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church. We say bless you when some one sneezes. We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards. Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia. We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court. We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored. We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer. We allow tax exemption to religious organizations. We continue to be culturally theistic.

If the USA were an atheistic nation instead of a very confused theistic nation, in what ways would our views on good and evil change? Obviously, gay lifestyles would no longer be debated and abortions would be considerably more acceptable, but aside from these morals that are rooted in religion, what would change? Would holidays such as Christmas and Easter go out the door? There hasn't been a truly atheist country yet so it's hard to say, but I'd like to hear what you think the major changes would be. Your comment about our laws being based on Judeo-Christian standards jumped out at me.

Well a loot of the holidays are pagan that the church took over to get people to convert, Christmas being one as a winter solstice. The idea of stealing would change. You would not feel guilty about doing it because of a deity. You would feel bad about screwing over another person. We would tend to focus away from the idea of abstract laws to that of dysfuntion of a proper act. Pick any crime and then think of the reason it is wrong rather than it as simply a violation of a law. A law is simply a community writing down the don't's of the situation. Reasoning brings more of a focus on the should's of life. You have done something to someone rather than broken the law or sinned. Morality would move more to doing what you will as long as it harms no one.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Atheists are increasing in numbers. Hmmm, deductive reasoning would tell me that the decline in economic and social order, failure of the school systems to teach students, a crumbling infrastructure, overpsending… All this time I was blaming politicians when it was really the rise of atheists.This falls under the same comment as the 'Women find us more attractive' – Not serious , just havin fun. Life is too serious to take serious.

It is not my theory; it is documented studies based on scientific truths. The oddity is that atheist and theists have been tested and show the same result. Maybe you are the odd one out or just denying you true self? As far as the next step of evolution, some scientific cultures believe that the chimpanzee evolved from humans and not the other way around. We may all end up back in the trees.

You obviously don't understand how 'scientific truths' work. There are no absolutes in science, only leading theories on a particular subject. Certain theories are so well supported by empirical data and peer reviewed duplicate experiments, that everyone assumes them to be correct. The studies that you are alluding to are at the cutting edge of neuroscience, and one of the better known ones such as The God Helmet has not been successfully replicated. In other words, they are just theories, they have yet to become scientific theories. Once the results are independently duplicated and the findings are consistent it will become a scientific theory.

Even if the studies turned out to be correct, and we were hardwired to believe in god, how does that support your god? If anything it just shows that the need to believe is driven by a biological function. So is the need to bash a woman in the head with a bat in order to drag back to the cave, but most of us overcome that need... how do you get god out of that?

As for the last thing you said, about some scientific cultures? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Anyone that believes that chimpanzees evolved from humans is an idiot, anyone that believes that humans evolved from today's chimpanzees has no clear understanding of how evolution works. Both humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor... I'm hoping that you were jesting because otherwise that was pretty stupid.

Its not so much a god gene as a programming that we tend to see causes in everything. We are a cause seeking animal. And then we tend to attribute it to intent. And if its intent that lightning striking my house was Thor's doing etc.;. A chair moves wow a ghost. The God Helmet may or may not show these hardwired neurological modules. Much more research has to be done. Dawkins in trying it saw nothing. Many people have results from it theists and skeptics alike.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I would wonder why I would want to even go down that road. Really, what is the god that would be disproved? It is a loving and all knowing, all powerful being? The problem of evil seems to make that one not work so well. Perhaps there is some other criteria that would better fit for this exercise? If so what would that be?

Really, that seems to be quite the problem. You have not provided a set of criteria to guide the exercise. Even if you had, any reasons for that criteria not working out do not need to rule out some other set of criteria.

Consider the proof that Tommy has offered. It assumes that there would be a possible world without suffering and a god with the ability and desire to make that happen. As that world clearly does not obtain, that god really does not work out so well either.

Against that, if I bring in Voltaire's concept of this being the best of all possible worlds, then I can advance a concept of god that would work in that world and what do we have? Not much honestly. All that we have done is advance an idea of god which is not falsifiable.

Honestly though, the idea of god(s) has been with us for a very long time. If something is found that makes the old idea obviously inoperative, then that aspect of god needs to be abandoned. As an example, a few centuries ago, there was a widespread belief that god had an aspect of the finger of lightning that came down from the sky to punish the wicked. In a world where lightning arrestors exist, that is clearly a problem. So few if any people still take that one seriously.

Similarly, as other new ideas come up, the definition can be further refined. Basically creating a god of the gaps. In Darwin's day, nobody at all spoke of god as causing the big bang. Prior to the Miller Urey experiments, the idea of abiogenesis was nothing more than “god did it”. Now the advocates need to deal with what might have happened, why it happened and when it happened.

If the best that one can do is see god forced ever further back into unfalsifiablity, then that is not really disproof of all possible gods but it is disproof of all gods not so defined. You can call it “theological refinement” or something similar if you want but the fact remains that the supposed mightiest being is being refined back into the margins of reality as newer and better explanations for naturalistic phenomenon are developed.

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

I would wonder why I would want to even go down that road. Really, what is the god that would be disproved? It is a loving and all knowing, all powerful being? The problem of evil seems to make that one not work so well. Perhaps there is some other criteria that would better fit for this exercise? If so what would that be?

Really, that seems to be quite the problem. You have not provided a set of criteria to guide the exercise. Even if you had, any reasons for that criteria not working out do not need to rule out some other set of criteria.

Consider the proof that Tommy has offered. It assumes that there would be a possible world without suffering and a god with the ability and desire to make that happen. As that world clearly does not obtain, that god really does not work out so well either.

Against that, if I bring in Voltaire's concept of this being the best of all possible worlds, then I can advance a concept of god that would work in that world and what do we have? Not much honestly. All that we have done is advance an idea of god which is not falsifiable.

Honestly though, the idea of god(s) has been with us for a very long time. If something is found that makes the old idea obviously inoperative, then that aspect of god needs to be abandoned. As an example, a few centuries ago, there was a widespread belief that god had an aspect of the finger of lightning that came down from the sky to punish the wicked. In a world where lightning arrestors exist, that is clearly a problem. So few if any people still take that one seriously.

Similarly, as other new ideas come up, the definition can be further refined. Basically creating a god of the gaps. In Darwin's day, nobody at all spoke of god as causing the big bang. Prior to the Miller Urey experiments, the idea of abiogenesis was nothing more than “god did it”. Now the advocates need to deal with what might have happened, why it happened and when it happened.

If the best that one can do is see god forced ever further back into unfalsifiablity, then that is not really disproof of all possible gods but it is disproof of all gods not so defined. You can call it “theological refinement” or something similar if you want but the fact remains that the supposed mightiest being is being refined back into the margins of reality as newer and better explanations for naturalistic phenomenon are developed.

All great points. I think the thing about Voltaire and more recently Plantinga with this is the best of all possible worlds loses sight of the fact we get our idea of god from a tradition that is basically the bible. We are dangled a carrot which is a promise of a best of all possible worlds called HEAVEN. So the tradition certainly claims that god has a perfect world or state of existence but it is denied his imperfect beings unless stipulations are met. Secondly the idea of Paradise is a perfect world that we are blamed for fucking up. This does not account for the suffering of animals before the evolution of man. So we see no place for the hypothetical theism on which most monotheisms are based. So the basis for my theodicy argument earlier posted is the very tradition from which a perfect god is derived posits a perfect world or two where the lion will lay down with the lambs,,,,,

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I would wonder why I would want to even go down that road. Really, what is the god that would be disproved? It is a loving and all knowing, all powerful being? The problem of evil seems to make that one not work so well. Perhaps there is some other criteria that would better fit for this exercise? If so what would that be?

Really, that seems to be quite the problem. You have not provided a set of criteria to guide the exercise. Even if you had, any reasons for that criteria not working out do not need to rule out some other set of criteria.

Consider the proof that Tommy has offered. It assumes that there would be a possible world without suffering and a god with the ability and desire to make that happen. As that world clearly does not obtain, that god really does not work out so well either.

Against that, if I bring in Voltaire's concept of this being the best of all possible worlds, then I can advance a concept of god that would work in that world and what do we have? Not much honestly. All that we have done is advance an idea of god which is not falsifiable.

NO it is not a proof or even logical presentation unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas. Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

What about the 4 people who were willing to suffer to ease Tommy's suffering? Are you going to tell them not to do it because suffering is all bad it proves there is no God. I do not know where you live (or care to know) but it must really suck.

Gene Simmons wrote:

Honestly though, the idea of god(s) has been with us for a very long time. If something is found that makes the old idea obviously inoperative, then that aspect of god needs to be abandoned. As an example, a few centuries ago, there was a widespread belief that god had an aspect of the finger of lightning that came down from the sky to punish the wicked. In a world where lightning arrestors exist, that is clearly a problem. So few if any people still take that one seriously.

Similarly, as other new ideas come up, the definition can be further refined. Basically creating a god of the gaps. In Darwin's day, nobody at all spoke of god as causing the big bang. Prior to the Miller Urey experiments, the idea of abiogenesis was nothing more than “god did it”. Now the advocates need to deal with what might have happened, why it happened and when it happened.

God of gaps??? I am not aware of that one. I am aware of our science of Gaps, and am doing my best to help close them.

Maybe God did do it and we are just finding out how. I really don't know how the mightiest being would go about doing that. I am looking into it.

Gene Simmons wrote:

If the best that one can do is see god forced ever further back into unfalsifiablity, then that is not really disproof of all possible gods but it is disproof of all gods not so defined. You can call it “theological refinement” or something similar if you want but the fact remains that the supposed mightiest being is being refined back into the margins of reality as newer and better explanations for naturalistic phenomenon are developed.

Refine God back into the margins of reality? It is sad when belief overpowers judgment and sound reasoning. I may be missing your point on this one but the mightiest being is incapable of creating events of natural phenomenon?As we become smarter we take the place of God?

Hmmm, I read that somewhere and it didn’t work. Maybe Tommy can explain. And I will not argue that it is real history, but it is a story that really fits this conversation. I just can’t believe that you still believe that science is going to cause people to run out of the churches especially when the methods and disciplines started in the church schools and is financially supported by the churches still.

NO it is not a proof or even logical presentation unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas. Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

What about the 4 people who were willing to suffer to ease Tommy's suffering? Are you going to tell them not to do it because suffering is all bad it proves there is no God. I do not know where you live (or care to know) but it must really suck.

Actually it has nothing to do with Christmas or the suffering of whatever four people you are talking about. It has to do with suffering period. And yes a rejection of Leibniz's that this is the best of all worlds. Something that Plantinga has also failed to show. No suffering no 4 people suffering. Agian there is an alleged heaven with no suffering as well as a paradise with no suffering. Those "people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery" are why there are starving multitudes in Africa, and countless other situations left to run there miserable course because of those people's indifference, lack of action and self-contentment. Perhaps they reflect the true nature of your god. Again address the proof you asked for that I simply provided. It has to do with the injustice of innocent suffering and gratuitous suffering as well. If you are better than a 4 year old answer it then. It in one form or another defeats any ontological argument and has left metaphysics in shambles with no single working metaphysic:

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas.

Gee, an adhom as an argument. Have yo considered the idea of actually responding or are you just going to do more of the same?

Mjolnin wrote:

Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

Perhaps you should try reading Candide instead of just googling the text which I provided you. Here it is:

unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas.

Gee, an adhom as an argument. Have yo considered the idea of actually responding or are you just going to do more of the same?

Mjolnin wrote:

Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

Perhaps you should try reading Candide instead of just googling the text which I provided you. Here it is:

t only took me a couple of hours to read the whole thing. As for you, I really don't know but probably far longer.

He can not answer it because theodicy has not been answered by classical theism since it was first presented. My form of presentation is weakly constructed so that it is readable but mimics the logical format. The argument is quite strong. There is a possible world of unlimited well-being according to Christians: Heaven. If god were all good he could have made the world such. He did not unless he is not all powerful and could not. Our everyday experience of the world defeats the classical attributes of god and therefore that concept of god. That is why theists in an ontological argument want to control the premise. But this as precursor to it defeats the premise of the ontological argument of a limitless good being and therefore the OA's conclusion. He can not answer it so he wants to say that god can't make a perfect world. This is the best possible world because of free will. ...yadah yadah yadah But then the presentation of heaven would have to be a sham to get the bad boys and girls to want to go there.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

At best the logic is subjective and at the deapest level it is limited.

The statements only work if this is all there is, nothing is your fault, all evil and suffering is understood and quantifiable following your definition. If God really loves me he would have given me the tricycle I wanted for Christmas and stop my suffering caused by doing without. argumentum ad hominem is your dodge,not mine. I think it is a perfect picture. Remember, I am an artist... artistic license. Why you believe it is logical is due to comprehension problem.

Incapability of comprehending that you’re responsible for your actions Incapability of comprehending that your actions affect others, and can be long lasting.Incapability of comprehending life has a value or purpose.Incapability of comprehending the necessity of suffering or even what isn’t suffering.Incapability of comprehending there are other realities apart from your existence.Incapability of comprehending reasons for the evil and that evil may be justified.

You can glean insight from a man who says you are evil and the cause for a screwed up world and expect to be treated that way and refuse to listen to someone who said you are good and should act like it. You asked for a definition of a God that fits your insight? You can put your fingers back in your ears and start with your lalalalalalal chant.

At best the logic is subjective and at the deapest level it is limited.

The statements only work if this is all there is, nothing is your fault, all evil and suffering is understood and quantifiable following your definition. If God really loves me he would have given me the tricycle I wanted for Christmas and stop my suffering caused by doing without. argumentum ad hominem is your dodge,not mine. I think it is a perfect picture. Remember, I am an artist... artistic license. Why you believe it is logical is due to comprehension problem.

Incapability of comprehending that you’re responsible for your actions Incapability of comprehending that your actions affect others, and can be long lasting.Incapability of comprehending life has a value or purpose.Incapability of comprehending the necessity of suffering or even what isn’t suffering.Incapability of comprehending there are other realities apart from your existence.Incapability of comprehending reasons for the evil and that evil may be justified.

You can glean insight from a man who says you are evil and the cause for a screwed up world and expect to be treated that way and refuse to listen to someone who said you are good and should act like it. You asked for a definition of a God that fits your insight? You can put your fingers back in your ears and start with your lalalalalalal chant.

Obviously you do not know the logic and continue to avoid answering it. This structure is universally accepted. The argument is typical. And your answers are lacking. A baby is not responsible for its action. Yet after twenty years of working as a Child Abuse Investigator I can damn well tell you no child deserves or is responsible for the things committed against children.

The possible world scenario is based upon other realities apart from ones existence. Evil is never justified. That is why it is called EVIL an intentional harm to another without basis. Life has life and purpose in that it seeks well-being. A all powerful god who is loving could have created a world where suffering is not necessary. In fact according to your superstition he has one hidden away called Heaven. You can put your fingers elsewhere but you need to either be responsive to discussion or debate or stop posting. Where is the definition of god?

The propositions presuppose god before there was fault. I did not define evil and suffering. You apparently projected your interpretation into the terms. It is not a questio of Christmas it is a question of Armageddon. Most suffering in this world is to the innocent such as babies. The possibility of world without pain and suffering is possible with aa omni-god and claimed. Paradise and the fall is but a myth blaming all evil on an original mythological couple. There simply is suffering because there is no god. I would assume finally that the comprehension problem lies with you and your Christmas tricycle. Hope you get one someday. Can you respond to the argument or just throw about silly insults and ungrounded blabber?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa